Fracking gets the green light – for now

Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment (PCE) Jan Wright has released her interim report into
fracking, and while she expressed concerns over the need
to improve industry regulation, she doesn’t think a fracking ban or a
moratorium is justified.

The report looked at the background of
fracking, assessed the environmental risks of and looked at whether New Zealand
policy and regulation was up to scratch in terms of being able to manage these
risks.

Her conclusion was that any environmental
risks can be managed providing that operational best practices are put in place
and enforced properly.

She did write, however that at this stage
she “cannot be confident that operational best practices are actually being
implemented and enforced in this country".

With the current government enthusiastic
about a future built on oil and gas, she said the question was whether the same
effort is being put into preparing for the impact it may have.

Her investigation will continue, with part two
looking at government accountability, regulation and community confidence.

She told the Herald she would not hesitate to impose a ban
if the second half of her investigation revealed that fracking was too
dangerous.

"Recommending a moratorium is
a big thing to do and I wouldn't do it lightly. It's a business employing lots
of people with livelihoods at stake here. But I am the environmental
commissioner so the environment must be primary concern. I've not seen anything
yet that it is of high and urgent concern but that is not to say that
everything has been done perfectly so far."

Reactions
from the experts, however, are mixed.

Professor Jenny
Webster-Brown, director of the Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management at the
University of Canterbury and Lincoln University, said the
report was timely and balanced, and she supported the PCE’s call for effective
regulation. However, from a philosophical standpoint, she’s not a fan.

"I'm afraid I cannot see why we should
risk the environmental effects of fracking, in order to extract every last drop
of the non-renewable fossil fuel resource. It is a stop-gap measure at best,
and one which we could well regret. Surely the money and ingenuity dedicated to
the development of fracking technology would be better redirected into the
development of alternative fuels?”

Dr Sally Gaw, senior lecturer in environmental chemistry at the University of Canterbury, was vehemenently
against.

"Even if operational best practices are implemented,
blow-outs, mechanical failure and human error have the potential to contaminate
soil, surface waters and groundwater,” she said.

“The consequences of a contamination incident have been
understated in the report as there are limited to no options for remediating
groundwater and soil once contamination has occurred."

Others were in support of the process and had confidence in New
Zealand’s ability to regulate.

Rosalind Archer, associate professor of engineering science at the University of Auckland, said she anticipates that “fracturing operations
currently being conducted in New Zealand will be shown to follow all relevant
international standards for well siting, design and construction".

The
conclusion to the interim report is no doubt disappointing to many. An
alliance of 16 community, hapu, environment
and business groups from around New Zealand, including 350 Aotearoa, Climate Justice Aotearoa and Frack Free Aotearoa, are still demanding a moratorium.

In a statement issued today, it said it was staunchly opposed
to fracking because it can "poison water, pollute air and contaminate soil,
threatening human and animal health. It can harm the farming, tourism and wine
industries that rely on our clean, green environment and healthy communities".

It's urging the government to move onto developing
an effective energy transition strategy, affordable public transport systems,
and sustainable agriculture that doesn’t rely heavily on petrochemicals.